Subject:
|
A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 02:15:51 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@ctp.iwantnospam.[AvoidSpam]com
|
Viewed:
|
944 times
|
| |
|
|
<slrn7k3ois.1dt.cjc@VADER.NS.UTK.EDU> <FBy91u.K5w@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Martin Legault wrote:
> All these restriction an different mentality than in the US make
> there is lot less house that have gun. This result in lot less violent crime
> commited with guns except in the west (Alberta an Saskachewan) where the number
> of house is comparable with the US.
You came late but your statement above is the crux of the debate.
A lot of people do not buy this link, do not buy the cause and effect
that is asserted between control of a tool and control of behaviour,
that is, that decreasing the availability of guns reduces crime. If you
buy this link, and you buy that it is OK to control potential
behaviours, why then, you should be in favor of gun control. If you
don't you'll be against it.
Similarly, a lot of people do not buy the cause and effect link asserted
by the other side, that concealed carry laws, trained citizens with guns
in their homes, and so forth, reduce crime, that is, that increasing the
availability of guns reduces crime. If you did buy it, why then, you'd
be against gun control. If you don't you'd be for it.
Nice parrallel dichotomy, eh?
Finally, a lot of people think that both of the above are irrelevant,
that owning one or more guns is a right, either specifically enshrined
in the constitution of the US, or a general right that devolves from the
right to own whatever property one chooses as long as one does not
violate the rights of others, and the notion that one cannot be
restricted from most property classes just because of potential uses.
If you buy that you're against gun control just as you are against
control of cars, drugs, garishly painted houses and a lot of other
things that may be bad for the owners or potentially bad for bystanders.
If you don't you're in favor of whatever restrictions on property you
believe will make society a better place.
Know what? I've got my opinion of which one or more (if any) of the
above is valid. Most of the readers of this whole thread know what it
is. They also know what their own opinion is on all three. I suspect
that nothing that anyone said here changed the opinion of anyone. Still,
I do like to hear myself talk, and I do like to throw out statements
that set everyone else off, I did both those things, so by my
perspective, this debate was successful. :-)
Nothing will change and I'm sorry I set it off. Keep debating though...
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
